Quality of abstracts of pilot trials in heart failure: A protocol for a systematic survey

Pilot and feasibility trials in surgery are incompletely reported according to the CONSORT checklist: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

Given the key role that pilot and feasibility (PAF) trials play in addressing the challenges of surgical trials, adequate reporting completeness is essential. Our aim was to assess completeness of reporting and evaluate if the items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for PAF trials have been reported in surgical PAF trials.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a metaresearch study reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were pilot or feasibility randomized trials evaluating a surgical intervention. The primary outcome was overall adherence to the CONSORT statement extension to randomized PAF trials checklist. A Poisson regression was performed to explore the association between research factors and reporting completeness.

SETTING

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1-December 31, 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

After screening 1991 citations, 38 studies from 2011 to 34 studies from 2021 were included. The mean CONSORT reporting score across all included studies was 21.5 (standard deviation 6.3). After excluding items that were not applicable to all studies, a mean of 20.1 (standard deviation 6.1) of 34 items (0.59) were reported. Studies published in 2021 (vs 2011) did not have a greater number of CONSORT items reported (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.15). Studies registered in a clinical trial registry (IRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.48) and randomizing more than 50 patients (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30) were associated with more CONSORT items reported.

CONCLUSION

The reporting completeness of surgical PAF trials is poor and has not improved after the publication of the CONSORT extension.

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Quality of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure is suboptimal: a systematic survey

BACKGROUND

Pilot trials are miniature researches carried out with the sole aim of acting as the precursor for larger more definitive studies. Abstracts are used to summarize and introduce the findings to the reading audience. There is substantive empirical evidence showing that abstracts, despite their important roles, are not informative enough, lacking the necessary details. This systematic survey was designed to assess the quality of reporting of heart failure pilot trial abstracts. The quality of reporting was defined as the completeness of reporting based on adherence to the CONSORT extension for reporting of pilot trial abstracts. We also identified factors associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Scopus, and African-wide information databases for abstracts from heart failure pilot trials in humans published from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2016. These were assessed to determine the extent of adherence to CONSORT extension checklist for reporting of abstracts of pilot trials. We screened identified studies for inclusion based on title and abstract. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using the checklist. We used regression analysis to assess the association between completeness of reporting (measured as the number of items in the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting of abstracts in pilot trials contained in each abstract) and factors influencing the quality of the reports.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-eight (228) articles were retrieved, of which 92 met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT extension score was 8.3/16 (standard deviation 1.7); the least reported items were the source of funding (1% [1/92]), trial registration (13% [12/92]), randomization sequence (13% [12/92]), number randomized to each arm (16% [15/92]), and number analyzed in each arm (16% [15/92]). Multivariable regression analysis showed that pharmacological intervention pilot trials [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-0.97] were significantly associated with better reporting. Other factors such as structured abstract (IRR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.23) and CONSORT endorsement (IRR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.23) only showed minimal relationship with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of abstracts of heart failure pilot trials was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention was significantly associated with better reporting. These findings are consistent with previous research on reporting of trials.